TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. It is the case of the petitioner that instead of making a proper entry against 7(a) of Tran 1, the petitioner has made an entry in 7(d). 2. Since there was a mistake, the petitioner had sent a representation to the Principal Chief Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, the second respondent herein to permit the petitioner to make an appropriate corrections in Tran-1 Form filed electronically by the petitioner on 10.11.2017. 3. This application was made by the petitioner long after the time had expired for filing Tran-1 for making amendment in Tran-1 on 31.12.2017. Since the petitioner was unable to elicit any favourable response from the second respondent herein, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.8966 of 2019 for a mandamus to direct ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he IT Grievance Redressal Committee(IT-GRC) dated 27.05.2019 which is filed in the minutes of the 6th meeting is reproduced below:- 3. Received from GSTN, Vikas Elastochem Agencies Pvt. Ltd. W.P.No.8966/20 19 of M/s Vikas Elastochem Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Forwarded to GSTC Secretariat vide email dated 09.04.2019 The petitioner (GSTIN 33AAACV1560FIZR) in the Writ Petition has not alleged any technical glitch in the matter. In paragraph 3(II) of the writ petition the petitioner has admitted that the consultants of the company had inadvertently entered the wrong column in the GST TRAN-1 while filing ITC amount of Rs. 33,28,709/-. The Consultant staff entered the above amount in Column No. 7(d) instead Column No.7(a) of GST TRAN-1, with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to again file the rectified TRAN-1 Form electronically or accept the manually filed TRAN-1 Form with the correction on or before 31.07.2019. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court indeed followed its earlier decision in the case of Kusum Enterprises Private Limited Vs. Union of India 2019-VIL-341-Del. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhargava Motors Vs. Union of India 2019-VIL-218-Del has noted the difficulties faced both by the Authorities and by the Assessee by observing that GST system....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 15. It is submitted that the petitioner had also filed writ petition in W.P.No.8966 of 2019 and withdrew the same on 19.06.2019 and that the issue regarding availability of TRAN-1 Credit should be construed as being settled against the petitioner with the withdrawal of the writ petition. He further submits that a specific time line has been prescribed under Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore there is no question of extension of limitation prescribed for amending the TRAN 1. 16. It is further submitted that if the petitioner had failed to make the correct entries or had failed to make suitable amendments in time. It cannot be rectified at a later point of time. He has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Division ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nial of transitional credit to assesses. 21. Ultimately, these are the amounts which have accumulated prior to the introduction of the respective GST Act, 2017 with effect from 01.07.2017. The amount lying in the respective rules as it prevailed under the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and CENVAT Credit Rule 2004 and TNVAT Act, 2006 were meant for discharging the Tax liability. 22. The technical problem arose at the time of initial implementations of GST which resulted in difficulties both for the Assessee and the for the Department. Ultimately, the amounts which were available as input tax credit under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Cenvat Credit Rules were to be transited as their equivalent to cash....